Is free will a myth?

[TheLight]

SvennoJ said:

TheLight said:

I am surprised that not one single person here knows much about modern physics. It was known during the time of Einstein that physics is not predetermined and the study of that is quantum mechanics. You can look it up but it basically means that the motion of atoms can not be predicted and any regularities are a statistical bulk phenomenon that we can get approximations to, but never certainties. That is our basic understanding of physics today and one of the problems we have is that there is no theory that combines Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum physics.

Einstein himself didn't belief in free will yet he admitted that quantum mechanics made this belief hard for him and stated that even though things seem random they are not and there must be some deeper theory that proves it, but since then no such theory has been accepted. I learned this from the book Einstein: His life and universe so if you are interested in the beginning of modern physics you can read that or use google.

So no that you know that you have no proof that free will is not possible confirmed by Einstein himself and many other scientists. The question is that if nothing is predetermined how does free will no exist? Of course you can still say you don't have a choice, but it is odd to say that it is likely you could choose either choice yet not have a choice because the chemicals and elections in your brain are atoms and they can not be predicted.

Sure on a quantum level everything is based on probability, yet on a macro level the world is certainly deterministic. Otherwise how are you reading this post at where ever you are. All those random electrons somehow ended up prefectly predictable on your screen.

But true, there is a loophole at the quantum level. Some force, free will, could perhaps affect the probabilities and will enough atoms in the right direction to tip the scales in a decision making process. It seems rather far fetched yet can't prove it's not possible. We simply don't know enough yet, nor can we do any experiments at the quantum level without affecting the outcome.

First we'll have to map a decision making process at the macro level. Brain scans aren't good enough for that yet. We're pretty much trying to decipher what a computer program does by looking at a heat map of the processor board while its working.

For now Occam's razor seems applicable, and the simpler hypothesis is that chemicals and electrons do make the decisions instead of some kinda quantum manipulation.

Electrons are very light so they are highly subseptable to quantum mechanics and if you don't know how the brain works there is nothing you have to say. You can't say we don't know and then say you are probably right when our common experience says that we have free will.  Smater people than you like Einstein disagee with you even though he didn't want to.   Occam's razor that is a laugh if someone said that to you to try to win an argument you would never acept it.  Physics and matter arn't simple we already have things like shodingers cat and the many worlds theor that are based on choices thoes aren't infalible, but since we know determinisim is bunk.  Since we don't actualy have a theory we can actually test the simple thing to do is belive in free will because that is our common experience there are many other factors that coul factor into fee will that would make it more likely, but we can't test any of them.   

So you don't get to say your right when you have nothing to back it up and you can't even say your likely to be right because we know too little to even come close to establishing a probability of anything.  I guess we can say I am waisting my time if you are just going to say your right  because most people don't want to change their minds or I could say you have no choice, but to be wrong because you have no free will.  That does sound strange what if I said you have no choice, but to be right then why would you even trust your mind if either were true.  

There realy is no point in arguing for the meaninglessness of the human mind because then we can't trust logic so if you even suceeded all your arguments based on that form of reasoning would be mute. Occam's razor would mean nothing because it was the invention of a mind that had no chice but to come up with it regardless of wheter it was true or false or even usefull. If no one has any control of their mind they can't stear it twords the truth.  Then why would we expect any reasoning done to be relible if it was garunteed to happen. There is not a single reason for a random scatering of atoms to produce any kind of truth as aposed to false hood if there isn't some kind of deciding factor because using the many worlds theroy in anouther universe you could be wrong and by what mesure between the two universes would you decide whithc one is right or wheather that theory is right.

Now I am going to sleep and I will read your reply tommorw then not respond because I choose not to waste any more time than that on arguing with somone who is trying to argue for their own meaninglessness.  If you have no proof you might as well believe in the better option or stop thinking about it and have some fun. Even if you are right it dosen't matter anyway because all things will perish and that thought will be forever lost and not a singe person will have benifited from thinking it while it still existed.  

So can you tell me what is the point of us arguing this pointless point besides wasting my time?  I supose I win by default if I make the choice to not waste any more of my time by not even reading your reply and you will never know wheather in the end if I choose to read it or you could choose to not make a reply. Why should  you or anyone who dosn't belive in free will care? You are going to do it any way wheather it is the right thing to do or not.